If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Writing to Your MP

This thread is a consolidation of many things relating to Writing to MPs covered by several other threads which have now been closed and redirected here.

We need your action! This forum represents a tremendous asset within the UK paddling community but it only has any real value in the Access campaign if we can mobilise that resource effectively.

On 22nd March 2011 The Sport and Recreation Alliance published the Red Card to Red Tape report which had been commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. One of the recommendations of the report is

DEFRA should introduce a statutory right of access in England and Wales for unpowered craft to inland water for recreational purposes.
This system of rights and responsibilities should be based on the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

Although commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the mere publication of the report does not imply that the department accepts the report’s recommendations or will attach any priority to their implementation. They will be making these decisions over the next few months.

To encourage the department to prioritise the recommendation concerning Access to Inland Water we need to demonstrate the importance that we, the paddling community attach to the issue by writing to our MPs now! (all MPs in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – they will all have a vote).

Template Letter/e-mail
We have been encouraging members to write personalised letters to their MPs with limited success. It seems that many members would like a template letter to simply cut and paste. Whilst it is not the most effective way it is clearly better than not writing at all so if you feel this is what you need, here it is.

I am writing to you to seek your help for the creation of a fair and equitable framework for access to and along our rivers for all users. I am a recreational canoeist and fully accept my responsibility to accommodate the rights of other users and the needs of wildlife and the environment.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Hugh Robertson MP, has recently commissioned the report “Red card to Red Tape” (see page 199) which has investigated, among many other things, the constraints to wider access to our inland waterways. Following the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 200, the majority of mountain, moor, heath, down and common land is now ‘open access’. Rivers and Inland Waterways were however conspicuously not covered by the CROW Act.
The report contrasts the restrictions in England & Wales with the situation elsewhere in Europe, particularly Scotland where the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 did address the issue of access to and along rivers and inland waterways. The report also comments on the effectiveness of the current arrangements and notes that “There are over 41,000 miles of rivers with no access meaning only 4% of linear rivers in England and Wales can be accessed for water recreation.” and “Over the last 40 years only 504 miles of additional access has been added through voluntary agreements and many of the agreements are for only one day per year.” The report ends with the recommendation that;-
“DEFRA should introduce a statutory right of access in England and Wales for unpowered craft to inland water for recreational purposes.
This system of rights and responsibilities should be based on the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.”
This would represent a change of policy for DEFRA who maintain that Voluntary Access Agreements are the way forward and no change in legislation is required. Local agreement on how a right of responsible access can be exercised, while accommodating rights of other users and the needs of wildlife and the environment, are necessary but they can only be achieved on the basis of equitable rights and responsibilities for all as recommended by the report.
Please consider the report and the failure of DEFRAs current policy and then :-
• contact the Minister for Sport, Hugh Robertson giving your support to the recommendation regarding Access to Rivers in the Red Card to Red Tape report and highlighting this issue as important to your constituents.
• contact Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State, DEFRA and Richard Benyon, Secretary of State for the Environment , indicating your belief that their current stance regarding Voluntary Access Agreements does not represent an effective solution to the agreed objective of extending access to our rivers and asking them to meet with Hugh Robertson and the Sport and Recreation Alliance to discuss their recommendation for improving access to inland water as recommended in 'Red Card to Red Tape'
Thank you for your help.

If you just want to send the template letter go to http://www.writetothem.com/, enter your postcode, click on your MP and cut and paste away! Please be sure to post the reply here.

Personalised Letter e-mail
If you are able to personalise your letter/email there are a number of samples bellow which may serve as inspiration. Follow the step by step guide:-

• Identify your MP by entering your post code on www.ukparliament.uk
• Click on your MPs name to get their full profile, which will show their email address and their Political Interests.
• The general theme of all letters will be similar (i.e. Drawing their attention to the lack of clarity re access to our rivers and contrasting this with the situation in almost every other country in the world especially Scotland) but there are several areas where you can personalise the content to your own experience and their interests. E.g. many MPs list “Health” as among their Parliamentary Interests so a paragraph like

“Canoeing is a low impact, healthy sport suitable for all age groups and many disabled people. It is already enjoyed by an estimated 1,000,000 people every year. Nearly everyone lives within 2 miles of a canoeable river. Clarification of widespread access to rivers therefore offers a significant contribution to the health of the nation and in these financially constrained times it will cost very little to make it much more widely accessible.”

• If they are interested in “Small Businesses” talk about the benefits on this area.
• Remember that the Lib-Dem manifesto for the 2010 General Election said

“We will also increase the general right of access to the countryside, along the lines of the model introduced by Liberal Democrats in Scotland.”

If you are writing to a Liberal Democrat it will do no harm to remind them of this!
Tell them that this is entirely in line with the Red Card to Red Tape recommendation and ask if this has their personal support.
• Ask your MP to write to the Minister for Sport, Hugh Robertson to highlight the access recommendation within Red Card to Red Tape as important to their constituents.
• Caroline Spelman (DEFRA Secretary of State) shows little sympathy for access issues and will not meet with the Sport & Recreation Alliance to discuss their report so ask your MP to write to Caroline Spelman to ask her to meet with the Sport and Recreation Alliance to discuss issues on improving access to inland water as recommended in 'Red Card to Red Tape'.
• Many MPs will forward your letter to the offices of the Ministers concerned (Hugh Robertson - Sports Minister, Caroline Spelman (DEFRA Secretary of State) and Richard Benyon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries) before replying but you should also stress that you would like to know their personal stance on the issue and whether you, as their constituent, can count on their support in ensuring that the recommendation is implemented
• Don’t just copy someone else’s letter. You know how you feel when you receive a standard letter and they will feel the same. It is important to describe the access problem on a river within the MP's constituency.
• There are many ideas contained in the sample letters that follow. Use these ideas to construct your own letter.
• Most importantly, when you get a reply post it here so that we can gauge the level of support from your MP. And if you feel you are just being fed the party line, write again stressing that it is his/her personal commitment (as your MP ) to the implementation of this recommendation as your MP that are seeking.

Unless you are perfectly happy with the current access situation and want it to stay this way forever, we have no positive alternative but to do what we can to change it. Your letter will contribute to growing pressure on Parliament to end the current stalemate.

Please do your bit now!

_______________

Sample Letters

The Sport and Recreation Alliance recently launched its review of regulatory burdens on sports clubs, entitled “Red Card to Red Tape”, commissioned by DCMS. The review recommends that DEFRA introduce a statutory right of access to rivers in England and Wales for canoes and kayaks. You can read the report here: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk...w%20res%29.pdf (see page 199).

This affects me directly because I live less than one mile from the River Mole, a beautiful Surrey river, yet I am unable to enjoy it as a canoeist without fear of being taken to court for trespass. In Scotland and nearly every other country in the world I would be able to share this natural resource with other river users in a responsible and environmentally sound way.

Canoeing and Kayaking is enjoyed by more than 1,000,000 people, providing a healthy outdoor activity for young people, families and older people. We have 41,000 miles of rivers suitable for canoeing, but only 2% - 4% of our rivers are available to us. I hope you see the benefits of providing a general right of recreational access to rivers within a sustainable and responsible framework such as works so well in Scotland. This would be a very positive step, providing benefits to all who enjoy the countryside.

I ask you to support this campaign to give access to the River Mole and other rivers. I am happy to provide you with further information, and would be happy to take you for a paddle on the Mole in the limited area where access is available.

Will you please:

1. Advise me of your position on this issue,

2. Write to the Minister for Sport, Hugh Robertson to highlight this access recommendation as important to your constituents,

3. Write to the DEFRA Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman to ask her to meet with the Sport and Recreation Alliance to discuss issues on improving access to
inland water as recommended in 'Red Card to Red Tape'.

Your sincerely”

I write to you to bring to your attention the fact that only 4% of English inland waterways have undisputed access for canoeists. Apart from England and Wales, other countries provide for shared responsible use of rivers by both canoeists and anglers and in my personal experience such arrangements work well. I understand this issue affects more 2,000,000 canoeists in the UK.

Recent work by the Rev Douglas Caffyn ( www.caffynonrivers.co.uk) indicates that the right to paddle exists on many rivers hereto thought by many to be private.

There have been many attempts over the years to negotiate voluntary access agreements between canoeists, anglers and land owners. This strategy has met with very little success. I believe this is because there is no benefit to land owners to give up their assumed, though legally suspect, right to control access to the water itself.

Responsible access to our wonderful rivers and lakes would bring an immediate and direct benefit to the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of our fellow citizens, particularly young people.

My local river is the Mole. It is about 1 mile from my house. If I, or other Horley residents canoe on it, we risk prosecution from the riparian owners, and abuse, threats of violence and actual violence from anglers.

We seek only to gain access to the Mole from a public place, to paddle responsibly through beautiful Surrey countryside, showing respect to the needs of anglers, and to exit from another public place. Research shows that canoeing is not harmful to fish or any other aspect of the environment.

There are some parts of the Mole, further North (part of the 4%), where access is not disputed. It might would be my pleasure to take you on a canoe trip there, so you could appreciate the joy of our wonderful river landscape.

Please advise me of your position on this issue and communicate my concerns to Richard Benyon, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Natural Environment and Fisheries), Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and Hugh Robertsson, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Sport and the Olympics) and Sir Peter Bottomley MP.

As a canoeist I am finding that access to English and Welsh rivers is being increasingly denied.

Many of our countries rivers are considered by anglers and riparian's to be their exclusive property.

Canoeing and kayaking is a sport or activity that does no damage and leaves no trace of its passing. Yet anglers and riparians wish to exclude us at all times.

Our local River Ribble is just one of many where a canoeist can encounter abuse and intimidation on many occasions.

The latest issue against canoeing and kayaking is that the Welsh Angling Clubs are preparing to sue canoeists.

This could of course go in our favour but it may not.

The right to navigate a river in an unpowered craft is an ancient right and no law has been passed to remove this right.

The suggestion by MP's that voluntary agreements is the way forward is ludicrous, they didn't work for ramblers in their 100 year struggle.

We need the law on our side and our rights to be included in CROW Act.

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention the issue of legal
access to the UK's Rivers and water ways for recreational use.

I am a qualified British Canoe Union Paddle sports coach, Keen canoeist
and wild swimmer. Consequently, I like to be able to make use of our
natural resources for the purposes of pursuing my profession and
hobbies.

Did you know that only 2% of the UK's waterways are open to public
access?

Did you know that by allowing your children to paddle in one of 98% of
the UK's streams, rivers, lakes and ponds that they are committing
tress pass, and by encouraging them to do so you are committing the
more serious offence of incitement to tress pass?

While the majority of man made waterways are indeed open to public use,
canals offer little in the way challenge, natural beauty and can even
be more dangerous to use on owing to man made weirs and other hazards.

I am regularly threatened by land owners and anglers, have had stones
thrown at me, fishing tackle cast at me and my group and have even been
threatened to have my boat 'shot out from under me', merely for
floating silently down a river.

There are estimated to be over one million recreational paddlers in the
UK, all of who appear to be committing a crime in pursuit of their
hobby.

We wish to have free and open access to out natural waterways, nothing
more.

It has been investigated and proven that canoeing has no detrimental
effect on the environment or ecosystem. No danger or disturbance to
wildlife, and we leave no trace as we pass through.

I, and many others, would appreciate your assistance in turning this
absurd situation around.

Here is a link to an Environment Agency report on the effects of
canoeing to fish stocks (which you may find is the most common reason
cited by land owners to denying public access)

In short, the report concludes that there is no detrimental effect to
fish stocks as a consequence of canoeing on a river.

Canoeing is one of the oldest forms of transport known to man, is
environmentally friendly, an Olympic sport, fosters a sense of
achievement and teamwork to thousands of children and vulnerable adults
and is a generally wholesome activity that the vast majority of land
owners alongside rivers are seeking to continue to prevent access to.

Please help

RIGHT OF FREE NAVIGATION IN ENGLAND & WALES

We last communicated on this subject in October 2005 and I thank you for your efforts in getting answers from various ministers at the time.
Under discussion was extension of the CROW act (2000) to include rivers, or to at least clarify the current legal situation.
At the time an EDM was also being proposed.

It was heartening to see the Lib Deb 2010 manifesto pledge:

The beauty of Britain’s natural landscape is vital to the quality of life of those who live there and to visitors.
Liberal Democrats will change the way the environment is protected so everyone has fair access to clean water, clean air, and open spaces.
We’re the only party that takes seriously the responsibility of protecting our natural inheritance and ensuring access for all.
Liberal Democrats will:
• Increase the general right of access to the countryside, along the
lines of the model introduced by the Liberal Democrats in Scotland

May I now draw your attention to some recently published work by the Reverend Douglas Caffyn for his doctoral thesis:http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk
His extensive research has shown that although navigation on our rivers was accepted as common law for centuries, this right has erroneously been eroded by incorrect interpretation.
In addition, there are various statutes of navigation still on our country's law books, yet the public receive abuse from riparian owners or fishermen if they decide to exercise their rights to use the river.

As an active canoeist, I still look forward to the day when the law is clarified, and all river users can again enjoy our heritage freely and responsibly.

Hopefully Rev Caffyn's work may move that day one step closer.

As one of your constituents and a recreational canoeist I am writing to
draw your attention to the woeful lack of public access to inland
waterways in England and Wales and to seek your support for a change in
the law to clarify the position and establish parity with the situation
in Scotland ( Land Reform Act (2003)) , the rest of Europe and the
English speaking world.
Prior to 1830 there was a generally accepted right of public access to
all rivers that were physically navigable. This right had existed
since time immemorial and was enshrined in Magna Carta. The Rev
Douglas Caffyn has researched the subject extensively and has produced
overwhelming evidence (seehttp://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/) to support
the view that the general right of access to inland waterways still
exists beyond the 3-4 % of waterways where there is legally defined
access via Navigation Acts etc.
Unfortunately there is also a widely held view among riparian
landowners that rivers are subject to property rights which give them
the right to control access along rivers. This leads to conflict with
and aggression against canoeists and other waterway users seeking only
to pursue a peaceful pastime in a reasonable and responsible way.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) did an excellent job of
clarifying public rights of way over land but unfortunately reference
to inland water which would have provided equal clarity for our rivers
was removed from the Bill at a late stage leading to today’s ongoing
lack of clarity.
I write to ask you to clarify your own position on this subject and to
ask for your active support in changing the law to give clarity of
access as is the norm virtually everywhere except England & Wales.

As a canoeist, I have been very surprised by the confusion that exists
in England when it comes to free access to what is without doubt a
fantastic public resource. I am finding that access to English and
Welsh rivers is being increasingly denied.

In Scotland I can, as I understand it, paddle pretty much anywhere I
want subject to minimal regulation.

As a canoeist , any of our countries rivers are considered by anglers
and riparian's to be their exclusive property.

Canoeing and kayaking is a sport or activity that does no damage and
leaves no trace of its passing. Yet anglers and riparians wish to
exclude us at all times.

The right to navigate a river in an unpowered craft is an ancient right
and no law has been passed to remove this right.

The suggestion by MP's that voluntary agreements is the way forward is
ludicrous, they didn't work for ramblers in their 100 year struggle.

We need the law on our side and our rights to be included in CROW Act.

Please advise me of your position on this issue and communicate my
concerns to Richard Benyon, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
(Natural Environment and Fisheries), Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State
for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, Hugh Robertson, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State (Sport and the Olympics) and Sir Peter
Bottomley MP

I am 48 years old with a love of the outdoors, I am neither a militant,
nor a trouble causer, yet in one year of enjoying a peaceful healthy
outdoor pursuit with my family I have experienced the above.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on this matter and extend the
invitation for you to experience a canoe paddle for yourself should you
be so inclined.

___________________

Progress to date

These are the MPs that have already been written to (the more letters an MP receives, the better):-

Reply from Mr Djanogly (Huntingdon)

Thank you for contacting me about freedom of access for canoeists in England.I understand this is an issue in which my colleague Richard Benyon, Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries is very interested. He assures me he is keen to achieve far greater levels of access to waterways for canoeists, as part of the Government’s commitment to improving access and public benefits associated with our natural environment.The previous Government implemented a voluntary access scheme where it is for the canoeist to negotiate with the land owner for access to a particular stretch of water. The policy was last reviewed in 2007.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is currently looking at how this is working, but at this stage believes decisions of this sort are best taken locally by landowners and interested groups who understand the implications of granting access for canoeists far better than would be the case in Whitehall.Please be assured, however, that the Government will be monitoring how effectively the policy continues to operate and will review it when necessary. Thank you for contacting me on this issue.Yours sincerely,Jonathan Djanogly

Email sent to Owen Paterson 1.4.11

Originally Posted by ChasDWarren

Do we have a recommended format / bullet points for an email to our local MPs ?

Email sent to my local MP :

Friday 1 April 2011

Dear Owen Paterson,

I write to you to bring to your attention the fact that only 4% of
English inland waterways have undisputed access for canoeists. Apart
from England and Wales, other countries (including Scotland)provide for
shared responsible use of rivers by both canoeists and anglers, In my
personal experience such arrangements work well. I understand this
issue affects more than 2,000,000 canoeists in the UK.

Recent work by the Rev Douglas Caffyn
(www.caffynonrivers.co.uk) indicates that the right to paddle exists on
many rivers hereto thought by many to be private.

There have been many attempts over the years to negotiate voluntary
access agreements between canoeists, anglers and land owners. This
strategy has met with very little success. I believe this is because
there is no benefit to land owners to give up their assumed, though
legally suspect, right to control access to the water itself.

Canoeing and kayaking is a sport or activity that does no damage and
leaves no trace of its passing. Yet many anglers and riparians wish to
exclude us at all times.

Here is a link to an Environment Agency report on the effects of
canoeing to fish stocks (which you may find is the most common reason
cited by land owners to denying public access)

In short, the report concludes that there is no detrimental effect to
fish stocks as a consequence of canoeing on a river.

The right to navigate a river in an unpowered craft is an ancient right
and no law has been passed to remove this right.

The suggestion by some MP's that voluntary agreements is unfortunately
in practice unworkable.

We need clarity in the law on our side and our rights to be included in
CROW Act.

Responsible access to our wonderful rivers and lakes would bring an
immediate and direct benefit to the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of
our fellow citizens, particularly young people.

There are large parts of the River Severn that enjoy legal navigation
rights. However the beautiful stretches above Pool Quay are disputed.
It would be my pleasure to take you on a canoe trip there, so you could
appreciate the joy of our wonderful river landscape, if you care to try
it?

Please advise me of your position on this issue and communicate my
concerns to Richard Benyon, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
(Natural Environment and Fisheries), Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State
for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and Hugh Robertsson,
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Sport and the Olympics) and Sir
Peter Bottomley MP.

Thank you for contacting me about freedom of access for canoeists in England.I understand this is an issue in which my colleague Richard Benyon, Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries is very interested. He assures me he is keen to achieve far greater levels of access to waterways for canoeists, as part of the Government’s commitment to improving access and public benefits associated with our natural environment.The previous Government implemented a voluntary access scheme where it is for the canoeist to negotiate with the land owner for access to a particular stretch of water. The policy was last reviewed in 2007.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is currently looking at how this is working, but at this stage believes decisions of this sort are best taken locally by landowners and interested groups who understand the implications of granting access for canoeists far better than would be the case in Whitehall.Please be assured, however, that the Government will be monitoring how effectively the policy continues to operate and will review it when necessary. Thank you for contacting me on this issue.Yours sincerely,Jonathan Djanogly

and will review it when necessary.I wonder when it becomes nessary.? Also whom knows when it is nessary.?

I am still awaiting a reply from my Area MP. another letter sent off today.

I've been given the standard Voluntary Access Agreement Line - What now?

If you are simply given the standard DEFRA line that Voluntary Access agreements are the way forward and they believe they work, it's time to challenge that view.

This is a sample of what you might want to say:-

Thank you for your e-mail/letter of ???? advising that DEFRA currently feel the best way forward is through Voluntary Access Agreements. Voluntary Access Agreements have some inherent failings which mean they inevitably fail in the stated objectives. The Red Card to Red Tape report (see page 199) identifies that :-

“Over the last 40 years only 504 miles of additional access has been added through voluntary agreements and many of the agreements are for only one day per year. Because rivers are linear and a canoe or other vessel can cover many miles in a day, separate access agreements must be made with every landowner.”

This is how the process works (or doesn’t) at the moment:-

1. Firstly, as “the only game in town”, as a result of the DEFRA stance, the paddler currently has two choices:-

1.1 Volunteer for an agreement or
1.2 Decline such an agreement and be presented as obstinate and obstructive (Go to 4.3)

2. If you decide to “volunteer”, a pre-requisite of entering into discussions on such an agreement (once you have located all relevant owners and others that claim ownership of the navigation rights for the stretch of water you wish to paddle) is to accept that the riparian landowners (or those they have sold the fishing rights to) indeed have the total right to control navigation (but no corresponding responsibilities). You have two options:-

2.1 Decline to accept this and want to debate this point in which case the discussions are over! (Go to 4.3)
2.2 Accept you have no rights and the landowners have all of them - in effect, accept the role of a supplicant.

3. If you accept the role of a supplicant, there is no need for substantive discussions since the landowner(s) will choose to make whatever concession they choose to “give” you based solely on their views of the situation and their own interests. At this point you have two options:-

3.1 Accept the largess of the riparian landowner gratefully (after all they didn’t have to give you anything!) or
3.2 Decline to agree to what has been offered and be presented as obstinate, obstructive and ungrateful. (Go to 4.3)

4. If you accept the largess of the landowner this will be called a Voluntary Access Agreement at which point you have three options:-

4.1 Go away and paddle within the agreement having made no substantial improvement in your Access to Inland Waterways. This situation continued throughout the twentieth century during which a negligible amount of available waterways were added to those open for paddling, often on the basis of one day a year access! or
4.2 Go away and paddle outside the agreement and be branded obstinate, obstructive, ungrateful, untrustworthy (you made an agreement and are now breaking it), and a criminal with no respect for the rights of others! or
4.3 Write to your MP pointing out the inequities of the current situation and asking for help in changing the law to confer a basic right to shared use of inland waterways and a responsibility to do so in a way that recognises the rights of other users and the protection of our shared environment.

5. If you write to your MP there are two possibilities:-

5.1 He/She will consult with DEFRA and advise you that the preferred way forward is through Voluntary Access Agreements and send you back to 1. or
5.2 He/She will consult with DEFRA, objectively appraise the workings of the current situation, having regard for the recommendations of the Red Card to Red Tape Report published by the Department of Culture Media & Sport, which recognises that future progress can only be achieved through a change in the law to recognise the rights and responsibilities of all river users as exists in every other civilised country in the world (many- e.g. USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada quoting a basis in English Common Law) and most recently Scotland through the Land Reform Act 2003.

Please look at the evidence of the current situation and then :-

contact the Minister for Sport, Hugh Robertson giving your support to the recommendation regarding access to inland water in the Red Card to Red Tape report (see page 199) and highlighting this issue as important to your constituents.

contact Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State, DEFRA and Richard Benyon, Secretary of State for the Environment , indicating your belief that their current stance regarding Voluntary Access Agreements does not represent an effective solution to the agreed objective of extending access to our rivers and asking them to meet with Hugh Robertson and the Sport and Recreation Alliance to discuss their recommendation for improving access to inland water as recommended in 'Red Card to Red Tape'

I replied to Mr Djanogly along the lines of that stated above and got the following response from his PA:

Thank you for your response. Parliament went into recess yesterday and Jonathan has not yet seen your email.However, you make a valid point about Defra’s Voluntary Access Agreements which I have taken up, on your behalf, with the Minister responsible, Richard Benyon.Jonathan Djanogly will respond when he has this information.Kind regards,Yours sincerely,

When I wrote to my MP (Geoffrey Cox,) I specifically asked not to be Given/palmed off with the standard DEFRA response, explaining how it didn't work and so on. I wanted his opinion not just the standard answer. I've contacted him now three times and finally have received a reply 'Thank you, your points have been noted' signed by one of his assistants. Is that it? It seems that if you put them (MP) in a position where they have to think for themselves and not just pass the buck. They just ignore you.

new reply

Originally Posted by Sonar

Reply as he is busy at this time your email will be answered in due course.

Dear Lord Helcoop

Thank you for taking the time to write to me concerning lack of public access to inland waterways in England and Wales. I was not fully aware of the problems this is causing canoeists however, I will look into this issue and will write to Richard Benyon MP the Minister with responsibilities for Inland Waterways on your behalf to raise the matter with him.

I will contact you again when I receive a response and in the meantime please do not hesitate to get in touch with me should you have any other issues of concern to you.

When I wrote to my MP (Geoffrey Cox,) I specifically asked not to be Given/palmed off with the standard DEFRA response, explaining how it didn't work and so on. I wanted his opinion not just the standard answer. I've contacted him now three times and finally have received a reply 'Thank you, your points have been noted' signed by one of his assistants. Is that it? It seems that if you put them (MP) in a position where they have to think for themselves and not just pass the buck. They just ignore you.

Paul

If you feel like doing it make an appointment with his local office to see them in person. Take along all your facts and ask them what thye are going to do about it.

Response from Owen Paterson

Originally Posted by ChasDWarren

Email sent to my local MP :

Friday 1 April 2011

Dear Owen Paterson,

I write to you to bring to your attention the fact that only 4% of
English inland waterways have undisputed access for canoeists. Apart
from England and Wales, other countries (including Scotland)provide for
shared responsible use of rivers by both canoeists and anglers, In my
personal experience such arrangements work well. I understand this
issue affects more than 2,000,000 canoeists in the UK.

Recent work by the Rev Douglas Caffyn
(www.caffynonrivers.co.uk) indicates that the right to paddle exists on
many rivers hereto thought by many to be private.

There have been many attempts over the years to negotiate voluntary
access agreements between canoeists, anglers and land owners. This
strategy has met with very little success. I believe this is because
there is no benefit to land owners to give up their assumed, though
legally suspect, right to control access to the water itself.

Canoeing and kayaking is a sport or activity that does no damage and
leaves no trace of its passing. Yet many anglers and riparians wish to
exclude us at all times.

Here is a link to an Environment Agency report on the effects of
canoeing to fish stocks (which you may find is the most common reason
cited by land owners to denying public access)

In short, the report concludes that there is no detrimental effect to
fish stocks as a consequence of canoeing on a river.

The right to navigate a river in an unpowered craft is an ancient right
and no law has been passed to remove this right.

The suggestion by some MP's that voluntary agreements is unfortunately
in practice unworkable.

We need clarity in the law on our side and our rights to be included in
CROW Act.

Responsible access to our wonderful rivers and lakes would bring an
immediate and direct benefit to the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of
our fellow citizens, particularly young people.

There are large parts of the River Severn that enjoy legal navigation
rights. However the beautiful stretches above Pool Quay are disputed.
It would be my pleasure to take you on a canoe trip there, so you could
appreciate the joy of our wonderful river landscape, if you care to try
it?

Please advise me of your position on this issue and communicate my
concerns to Richard Benyon, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
(Natural Environment and Fisheries), Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State
for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and Hugh Robertsson,
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Sport and the Olympics) and Sir
Peter Bottomley MP.

Please help

Yours sincerely,

Chas Warren.

Had a written reply yesterday, but don't know how to place a pdf file into this thread having scanned it.

Persistence and convincing reasoning will pay off! It did in the case of Scotland and in England and Wales for the Ramblers. Both achieved their access rights in the face of determined oposition from people that shared many of Fario's views.

Originally Posted by Fario.

They have more important things to deal with.

I knew you'd get there Fario! We agree on something! Yes they do have more important things to deal with.......... but it's not an either /or situation and there is time to deal with Access. There is not yet the motivation but we're working on that!

These are the MPs who voted in favour of improved access in the Early Day motion in 2008. I've listed them in constituency order. If you live in one of these constituencies it should be an "easy win" writing to them and asking them to raise the issue with the two relevant Departments.

There is no point in writing to your MEP - they have no role in the decission making process for any UK law.

I think that it is worth writing to Richard Benyon but it's worth waiting until your MP tells you his views (standard letter) because you can then write to Richard Benyon but copy it to your MP and keep asking him for action.

There is no point in writing to your MEP - they have no role in the decission making process for any UK law.

I think that it is worth writing to Richard Benyon but it's worth waiting until your MP tells you his views (standard letter) because you can they write to Richard Benyon but copy it to your MP and keep asking him for action.

Thank you for contacting me about freedom of access for canoeists in England.I understand this is an issue which my colleague Richard Benyon Minister of natural environment and fisheries is very interested. He assures me he is keen to achieve far greater levels of access to waterways for canoeists, as part of the governments commitment to improving access and public benefits associated with our natural environment.The previous government implemented a voluntary access scheme where it is for the canoeist to negotiate with the landowner for access to a particular stretch of water.The policy was last reviewed in 2007.DEFRA is currently looking at how this is working, but at this stage believes decisions of this sort are best taken locally by landowners and interested groups who understand the implications of granting access for canoeists far better than would be the case in Whitehall.Please be assured however, that the government will be monitoring how effectively the policy continues to operate and will review it when necessary. In the meantime if there is anything further you would like me to do in connection witha specific local access issue please do give me further details thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Further to Keith's list of EDM supporters

Put this together yesterday (yes, I should get a life), and came across this thread today, so...

A bit dated, but out of the 648 sitting MPs, there are only 57 who were both an MP at the time and felt strongly enough to sign the pro-paddling EDMs nos. 1331 and 1557 (in 2008 and 2009 respectively; there are 21 remaining MPs who fall into the same category of continued tenure, and who signed the anti-paddling amendment to EDM 1331).

Please feel free to make corrections as I had been intending to send this to the BCU who claim to have written to all MPs but haven't, so far as I'm aware, published any statistical or interpretive results of responses.

Put this together yesterday (yes, I should get a life), and came across this thread today, so...

A bit dated, but out of the 648 sitting MPs, there are only 57 who were both an MP at the time and felt strongly enough to sign the pro-paddling EDMs nos. 1331 and 1557 (in 2008 and 2009 respectively; there are 21 remaining MPs who fall into the same category of continued tenure, and who signed the anti-paddling amendment to EDM 1331).

Please feel free to make corrections as I had been intending to send this to the BCU who claim to have written to all MPs but haven't, so far as I'm aware, published any statistical or interpretive results of responses.

You may all as well go pxxs into the wind. Lip service is what it is. Why should they care about a few canoeists. You are way down on the agenda. Get real guys -why waste your breath.

You do need a life. You may as well go pxxs into the wind. You are so low down on their list of priorities as to be invisible.

Last edited by KeithD; 18th-April-2011 at 09:55 AM.
Reason: Fario had made changes within his quote of John Saunders

John
Many thanks for assembling this information. Keith will no doubt be updating our MP data base with this info, although, knowing Keith, he may have already done so.

It is very encouraging to see active participation like this.

We are looking to develop our web strategies to be able to take direct advantage of this kind of information. This is one reason why we need for people to write to their MP so we can get feedback from them and know who are are friends and who are enemies.

The more we campaign, the more we will become known to MPs, and the higher priority will we get. If the Ramblers can do it, so can we.

To everyone, please do your bit. Write to your MP, see here and vote on 38 Degrees, see here

Thanks John. I had the bulk of that information but I missed out EDM 1577 which I have updated. The summary I have from all sources is that there are 81 supportive MPs v 22 opposed. There are many without clear views including most of those that have been written to.

Of those that are opposed, the most important is Richard Benyon who is Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Like all members of the government, following the "Pauses for consultation" on the sell off of the forests and the NHS reorganisation, he is likely to be keen to demonstrate that he is able to listen. The more "opportunities to listen" (via members letters to MPs) the better.

3rd attempt to get through to him!!

Dear Jim Paice

Thank you for the reply to my second letter regarding river access for canoeists. I appreciate that you represent DEFRA and have to promote their policies, but I still wonder if you understand the problem from a canoeists perspective. Your constant use of “we” in your letters, rather than “I” suggests they are departmental replies rather than your personal considered opinion. I know that the evaluation on VAAs appears positive but I wonder if you are aware of the studies shortcomings:

The pilot studies attempted to improve access on four rivers – the Wear, Teme, Mersey, and Waveney.During the study72kms (45 miles) was negotiated for paddlers, but in reality there was already agreement and acceptance for canoeing to take place on much of the area of study. (the EA had even sponsored a Canoeists Guide to one of the rivers!). So, in two years, very little access had been gained with some of that being highly restrictive and complicated -·The River Teme is over 60 miles in length and only 1 mile of access had been negotiated on certain days, and for only 9 months of the year. ·From over 50 miles of the River Wear, 7 miles of access was agreed and at the end of the study period, this was not definite.

Possibly because of such poor results on the Teme and Wear studies, the evaluation of the pilot studies only considered the agreements on the Mersey and Waveney.

Looking next at the Mersey - this was in fact, a realisation of an earlier scheme put forward by the British Canoe Union in 1994/5 and supported by the Environment Agency NW Region. It was brought about by Local Authorities, who have a statutory remit to promote recreation. Access was uncontested by other interests, so the voluntary agreement could be considered a formality – in other words it gained no extra water for me.

On the Waveney, the agreement was a duplication of the work undertaken by the British Canoe Union, Environment Agency, Local Authorities and the East of England Development Agency in 1999. This previous work was not identified by the EA and Brighton Team and as canoeing had taken place for many years access was not contested, merely formalised – again - no gained water for me!

As can be seen from the number of large organisations involved in the study areas, these are not the sort of agreements that could be organised by an individual.

Your comments on the Big Society show that you have not really understood what canoeists want, or the effect that VAAs have had: The agreements on the river Teme were so unsuccessful because the parts of the river that canoeists were really keen on, were also those where the anglers want to be. The final agreement was only 1 mile or 1.6km of whitewater around Ludlow – including four weirs: The rest of the river which is more suited to novice paddlers is unavailable, so the agreement in fact, could raise serious safety issues for a large number of paddlers. The agreement is also highly restrictive with no access in June, July and August and considerably reduces access the rest of the year with a potentially unmanageable booking system. The previous arrangement was for all year round paddling based on suitable water levels. The intervention of the Brighton Team in fact gave the opportunity for locals to close down the paddling opportunities:- If canoeists approach from a position of perceived weakness (Can I use your river please?), that gives power to the landowner, and what incentive is there for a landowner to agree?

David Cameron says“The big society is about changing the way our country is run. No more of a government treating everyone like children who are incapable of taking their own decisions. Instead, let's treat adults like adults and give them more responsibility over their lives. That's why, in reality, this is quite different from what politicians have offered in the past. This is not another government initiative – it's about giving you the initiative to take control of your life and work with those around you to improve things. It has the power to transform our country. That's why the big society is here to stay.” The Guardian 12 Feb 2011

Without legislation to change the access situation, other people control where I paddle in England. I am at the mercy of whoever owns the river bank for access, and could be told yes or no on a whim. Legislation would empower me to be responsible for myself and surroundings. It would give all river users the responsibility to respect the countryside and the rights of other river users. I want to be held responsible for my actions. Legislation could only improve things. Once again, I ask “Does the government think that English people who want to use the countryside for recreation are not as responsible as those who live north of the border?” – or perhaps I should re-word this “Do you think that English people who want to use the countryside for recreation are not as responsible as those who live north of the border?”

The summary I have from all sources is that there are 81 supportive MPs v 22 opposed. There are many without clear views including most of those that have been written to.

Keith

Maria Miller MP (Con., Basingstoke) is [in my opinion thoughlessly] opposed. You (or any other Basingstoke constituents who are paddlers) can have the details of comms with her if you're interested, but they're too boringly predictable to reproduce in detail here.

As the forum has 8878 members, I can’t help feeling that the fact that we have only managed to write to 34 MPs is a bit pathetic. What are the other 8844 forum members doing? Is there no better way of encouraging them to do something?Could the forum front page be changed to highlight the issue more?Would it be possible to use forum data and email members directly to ask them to write? - There are sample letters in the access thread that they could copy and paste so it wouldn’t need much effort on their part. – I know we’re not supposed to talk politics, but encouraging others to become more political by writing to MPs on this issue is surely ok?I understand that some might feel they don’t want to be bothered or would rather leave things alone rather than risk losing what they already have, but even if only10% bother to write it would be a massive boost......Just an idea – rant over (for now)

I've had my brief reply from my MP attaching the familiar policy from DEFRA and here is my reply.

Dear Dr Lee

Thank you for your letter of 7th April with the attachment from Richard Benyon.

I think it would be helpful if I indicated the substantial areas of agreement before focusing on the areas of disagreement which I believe are preventing overall progress. I agree that agreements are helpful to resolve local conflicts between apparently competing activities local residents and businesses, protect the environment and aid installation of signs and structures etc. as necessary. I understand and agree completely that some of the issues arising will be very local and specific and can not be resolved without constructive local engagement and discussion.

The equivalent of these issues arise and are resolved everywhere across the broad spectrum of countryside covered in England and Wales by the Countryside Right of Way Act 2000 (which unfortunately does not extend to inland waterways) and in Scotland by the Land Reform Act 2003 which includes inland waterways. All these areas have issues that require local agreement and report no widespread problems in arriving at them.

There is no suggestion that the recognition of clear and equitable rights within the Land Reform Act 2003 or the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 has done anything to reduce the effectiveness of such agreements. Indeed, the provision of such clear and equitable rights and responsibilities means that no time and effort needs to be wasted agreeing rights and responsibilities and the parties can progress immediately to questions of how such rights can be exercised responsibly and with due consideration to the corresponding rights of other users and the needs of the environment.

Contrast this with the experience of those attempting to progress agreements in the absence of clear and equitable rights beforehand. In 2005/6 The University of Brighton, working with the Environment Agency sought to implement four Voluntary Access Agreements as a means of investigating the problems experienced and developing models and advise for the future implementation of VAAs as recommended by DEFRA. Their final report is here http://www.brighton.ac.uk/chelsea/ne...anoereport.pdf .

By accepting the supremacy of the property rights of riparian owners, the canoeist is put in the position of a simple supplicant. If you look at Section 5 of the report (page 43 onwards) you will see that despite the assumption that any failure to respond from a landowner meant agreement, any further discussions on agreements can be, and in several instances was, completely terminated on the basis of an objection by a single landowner acting alone. In such cases it was impossible to progress to the benefits referred to in Richard Benyon’s letter to you. In several cases VAAs were held to be successfully achieved but these are best illustrated by the Mersey Canoe Trail agreement where there was no involvement by any angling interest claiming a monopoly of rights and which was led by a local authority already committed to the recognition of canoeing aspirations. These are not conditions that are easily replicated.

Even with total goodwill and positive engagement from all parties (the report indicates the unlikelihood of this being achieved) there is an inherent asymmetry of rights (see Section 4.4 page 39)

“The asymmetry of rights

While it is often possible to negotiate access, it remains the case that riparian owners

have more freedom to determine whether an agreement is reached, and what the

agreement covers. The actions of the users may be influential in reaching this

decision, but it is the riparian owner that makes it. Even on the Waveney, where there

has been considerable co-operation between anglers, landowners and canoeists, the

agreement is still bounded at both ends by riparian interests (not necessarily owners)

unwilling to allow the passage of canoes. A similar position exists on the Teme and

the Wear."

This situation has also been investigated and reported on by The Sport and Recreation Alliance who were commissioned by the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Hugh Robertson MP. Their report Red Card to Red Tape (see page 199) identifies

“Over the last 40 years only 504 miles of additional access has been added through voluntary agreements and many of the agreements are for only one day per year. Because rivers are linear and a canoe or other vessel can cover many miles in a day, separate access agreements must be made with every landowner”

and recommends the effective abandonment of the past policy of DEFRA

“DEFRA should introduce a statutory right of access in England and Wales for unpowered craft to inland water for recreational purposes. This system of rights and responsibilities should be based on the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.”

Please consult with Hugh Robertson on why this recommendation is at such odds with the past and current stance of DEFRA. Please also ask his opinion of the work done by the Rev. Douglas Caffyn in his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex ‘River Transport 1189-1600’. This thesis is a powerful analysis of rights of navigation in the past which, never having been extinguished by Parliament, has profound implications for the assumptions regarding current rights of navigation which forms the basis of DEFRAs current policy.

When you have had the opportunity for such discussions I would like to meet with you at your Constituency Surgery to discuss how you feel the current impasse can be resolved.

I'm not disheartened by the fact that my MP is not yet an avid supporter of Access rights. He is now aware of the issue and I have the opportunity to engage him further. This is how I believe the access issue will advance -one small step followed by another.

The more of us that are taking those small steps the greater the cumulative distance travelled!

Another Response

"Dear Mr Dew,
Thank you for e-mailing me your concerns regarding waterways access for
canoeists. I admire your interest in this area that not many people choose
to address. I do agree that canoeing is a wonderful sport that not only
enhances one's adventurous side, but also provides an opportunity to
discover and appreciate the surrounding environment to a greater extent.
Unfortunately, this issue does not constitute a field in European Union
legislation, and thus my knowledge in this field is quite limited. However,
I am able to provide you with some guidelines as to who you should be able
to contact in order to receive the answers you are searching for.
To my understanding, the banks of the majority, if not all of the canals and
rivers are privately owned; therefore you would legally be able to access
rivers and canals that are still navigable, provided that you hold a valid
licence. The legal position on trespassing can be found on the Canoe England
official website:http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/medi...onTrespass.pdf
In addition, in what costal access for canoeists is concerned, you might be
interested to read The Marine and Costal Access Act, implemented by the UK
government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in
2009. Besides dealing with providing a better protection for the marine
environment, this legislation will offer a much clearer understanding of the
areas of access to the land and shore from the sea for canoeists. Should you
request more information on The Marine and Costal Access Act 2009, please
access the DEFRA website below:http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/mca/
Furthermore, you can find the full content of the Marine and Costal Access
Act here:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0090023_en.pdf
Alternatively, you can always contact your local council for more
information concerning canoeing, the steps in obtaining licensed permits and
navigable waterways. If you have trouble finding your local council, please
use the UK government website:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Dire...cils/index.htm
I anticipate that this may not be the response you were expecting, however I
do trust the information provided here will assist you in finding answers to
all your enquiries.
Regards,
Nirj Deva, MEP"

As the forum has 8878 members, I can’t help feeling that the fact that we have only managed to write to 34 MPs is a bit pathetic. What are the other 8844 forum members doing? Is there no better way of encouraging them to do something?Could the forum front page be changed to highlight the issue more?Would it be possible to use forum data and email members directly to ask them to write? - There are sample letters in the access thread that they could copy and paste so it wouldn’t need much effort on their part. – I know we’re not supposed to talk politics, but encouraging others to become more political by writing to MPs on this issue is surely ok?I understand that some might feel they don’t want to be bothered or would rather leave things alone rather than risk losing what they already have, but even if only10% bother to write it would be a massive boost......Just an idea – rant over (for now)

Sam

It may well be the case that many canoests are happy the way things are As I expected a very great response but as mentioned above that not many have taken the time to write to their MP.

Its the British condition people like to moan over a pint but when it comes to actually doing something about it, its the same few people that get involved.

Also the membership figures are not an accurate reflection of active posters. If you checked the number of posts over the last 6 months by members you would probably come up with a figure of 300 -400 individuals max. People ebb and flow with their interests.

Some people may just think that writing to their MP is a complete waste of time. Look at how many people turn out for general elections.

We get the politicians we deserve and it seems we have the NGB we deserve as well.

No one holds the BCU to account for its policies. 30000 members and still we are no closer to gaining access to inland water.

We bicker amongst ourselves whilst those who want to keep us off the water smile contently, that we are incapable of acting as a cohesive body.

The angling lobby has a firm agenda and works tirelessly to protect its interests.

My second letter to my MP

You were kind enough recently to respond to my letter to you regarding canoe access to the River Mole. I would like to bring you up to date on recent developments and ask for further assistance.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance recently launched its review of regulatory burdens on sports clubs, entitled “Red Card to Red Tape”, commissioned by DCMS. The review recommends that DEFRA introduce a statutory right of access to rivers in England and Wales for canoes and kayaks. You can read about this report here: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/redcard.

This affects me directly because I live less than one mile from the River Mole, the beautiful Surrey river, yet I am unable to enjoy it as a canoeist without fear of being taken to court for trespass.

I ask you to support this campaign to give access to the River Mole and other rivers.

Will you please:

1. Write to the Minister for Sport, Hugh Robertson to highlight this access recommendation as important to your constituents,

2. Write to the DEFRA Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman to ask her to meet with the Sport and Recreation Alliance to discuss issues on improving access to inland water as recommended in ‘Red Card to Red Tape’.

I look forward to the day when I can invite you for a celebratory paddle on the River Mole. The tea and cakes are on me!

Its the British condition people like to moan over a pint but when it comes to actually doing something about it, its the same few people that get involved.

Also the membership figures are not an accurate reflection of active posters. If you checked the number of posts over the last 6 months by members you would probably come up with a figure of 300 -400 individuals max. People ebb and flow with their interests.

Some people may just think that writing to their MP is a complete waste of time. Look at how many people turn out for general elections.

We get the politicians we deserve and it seems we have the NGB we deserve as well.

No one holds the BCU to account for its policies. 30000 members and still we are no closer to gaining access to inland water.

We bicker amongst ourselves whilst those who want to keep us off the water smile contently, that we are incapable of acting as a cohesive body.

The angling lobby has a firm agenda and works tirelessly to protect its interests.

I agree that it's usually the same people who get involved - but because we are involved, we must not give up on all the other people - we should be continually encouraging them to get involved. Until we are successful at this, people will get the politicians they deserve. I wonder if a large number of forum members just ignore the Access Campaign section because it sounds boring to them or they feel helpless to make a difference?

Do you think I should start writing comments about access in replies to blogg postings? - along the lines of: "that looks like a great days paddle, - have you thought about writing to your MP to explain that this paddle was only possible because it is a public navigation, and that 98% of rivers are not?"

The figures of up to 400 are probably more accurate as active members, but if we only convince 10% of those to write to their MPs, then that would be double the number of writers we have now.

I do think we need to bring attention to our problem in other ways, but the final reckoning will either be in the courts or through legislation and I think that personally, I would rather try to convince a politician than risk the expense of the possibility of not convincing a judge!

As far as holding the NGB to account, access is just one aspect of their work. They have been asking us for years to write to our MPs to highlight the problems of access and I bet only a tiny percentage of the membership has done so - which brings me back full circle. We need to convince more people to take an interest, that interest would lead to more letters to MPs, which would get more MPs on side, which would eventually lead to changes in the law.

Sam you are correct that we need to engage as many people as possible to write to their MPs and Defra.

Its only through continued pressure for change that we will succeed. I think that those within the BCU and beyond feel that the task is almost insurmountable.

There are too few members willing to write letters attend stakeholder meetings. Organise protests on and off the water.

It would be great if only a small percentage of the paddling community got out and surveyed their local river and reported back to their Parish council demanding something be done about access restrictions and litter etc.

There are as you point out 8000 odd members on here yet how many people have organised clean up paddles.

Not much to ask that we carry a pair of gloves and few bin liners on you next paddle.
if you contact the local council they will probably arrange to collect the rubbish bags for you. I know Arun District Council will.

It is up to everyone to take a little personal responsibility for their area and make something happen.

These are very good comments... I hope momentum will build here, as SOTP members see the commitment shown by you and others.... I know the BCU have been watching what we are doing with great interest...

38 Degrees say ..... Write to your MP!

38 Degrees, probably the most effective campaigning organisation in the UK today, has just emailed all it's members to encourage them to act on the Campaign to save the NHS. What have they asked people to do?

A reply!

I just received a reply by letter from my MP, Harriett Baldwin, Conservative. I had thought that I wouldn't receive one, but today I was surprised.

It reads as follows;
"Thank you for your email of 6 March about recreational river access. I have heard of others who have had abuse shouted at them while kayaking and can understand how upsetting this is.

In the first instance, I have taken up your points with the Minister at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I will let you know when I receive his reply.

I just received a reply by letter from my MP, Harriett Baldwin, Conservative. I had thought that I wouldn't receive one, but today I was surprised.

It reads as follows;
"Thank you for your email of 6 March about recreational river access. I have heard of others who have had abuse shouted at them while kayaking and can understand how upsetting this is.

In the first instance, I have taken up your points with the Minister at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I will let you know when I receive his reply.

Your sincerely
Harriet Baldwin MP"

Quite a positive letter I thought.

Yes that's more positive than many - the negative bit starts when she gets the standard photocopy from DEFRA!

BUT YOU MUSTN'T GIVE UP!

When you recieve it, just write back to explain that VAAs don't work and why and hopefully she'll understand your point of view and follow things up again.

I know it doesn't sound it, but I'm trying to be really positive here - yours is a much more positive reply than many have had!

I'm glad she pulled through for me. She was the only MP in the last general election who took the time to speak to each person around here individually about the issues people were concerned about rather than just the usual "will you consider voting for me" spiel.

Thank you for your email. I am aware of the BCU's long-running campaign to open up inland waterways in England and Wales to members of the public.

The current law in England and Wales is that whoever owns the the land along the water's edge also owns the property rights to the river bed.
Therefore anyone on that water without permission from the owner is trespassing, despite the fact, as you have mentioned, that the water itself is not owned. Inland waterways were excluded from Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which granted public rights of way over non-agricultural land. I sympathise with your situation - it does appear that England and Wales are two of the most restrictive countries in the world when it comes to access to waterways! Even the Scottish Parliament has granted almost limitless access to rivers in its Land Reform Act 2003.

Unfortunately this issue is one for the UK government, and outside of my jurisdiction as a Member of the European Parliament. As you will no doubt be aware, laws across the EU Member States vary on this, with some granting limitless access, whilst others still have some 'private'
waterways.

I wish you the best of luck with your campaign. Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Callanan MEP

Yes I know that the meps have very little to do with this but this is another way of raising the issue that I am sure will filter again to the right desks.

I have now sent a second letter to him asking that he forward my letter and his reply to Richard benyon and again to My local mp.

Having already received a copy of the DEFRA generated response throught my MP, Guy Opperman, I was surprised to find another letter in the post today in which he apologises for the "standard" DEFRA letter and assures me that he will "make a personal representation with the Minister" in question and then let me know the outcome!!!!!

The negative bit is basically saying that I shouldn't hold my breath as we have already received a reply and that it is very unlikely that his representation would change the outcome!!#
See what happens next, I might make an appointment to see him and let him know that he actually appears to do something and then thank him for that! Who knows, he might just come out for a paddle

"Thank you for your email regarding your concerns about access to inland waterways for canoeists and anglers, which I read with interest.

I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs about this matter, outlining your concerns and enclosing a copy of your email. As soon as I receive a response from the Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, I will write to you again.

I am well aware of the duties of the meps.
However another letter has gone off asking that he himself could send a letter for me including his response.
Just to back up other letters that I have written and many others have also written...

Dear Sir

I am in favour of the increased right of public access to inland waterways but as the European Parliament has no jurisdiction in this area, I would suggest that you contact your local MP who may be able to assist you in amending the law at Westminster.

Yours sincerely
Stephen S Hughes MEP

North East European Constituency Office
Room 4/38
County Hall
Durham
DH1 5UR